WI: Covert conversion of an European ruler to Islam?

[Euphemios]

Say, one of the heads of the players in Europe during the Early Modern Era has a crisis of faith and just so happens to stumble upon the Qur'an as translated by Mark of Toledo.
The more interesting potential converts seem to be Isabella, Charles V, and Louis XIII in my view. The English are probably too busy with their intriguing and infighting to give breathing space to a convert to do anything.
As for why the three, for Isabella, a female monarch dealing with this situation seems interesting. Charles V is because he possesses so much land that he is bound to have an impact somehow. Louis XIII is the precursor to the infamous XIV and ruled during the last breaths of French feudalism.

Are there better candidates for this?
How would the convert learn more about his religion without attracting suspicion?
How would the convert act according to Islam without rocking the boat of his own throne too much?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

For a good analogy, maybe look at Charles II of England -- he converted to Catholicism at some point, but since he ruled a strongly anti-Catholic nation, he kept this secret until he was on his deathbed.

 

[nickmn]

I don't think any conversion would have had any real impact . Christianity was so well entrenched in Europe that a muslim ruler would be far far more likely to lose his head than to actually change anything in his country .

 

[HeavyMetal]

Spanish King or Queen is directly impossible. Catholicism defines them even more than nationality, and they were surrounded by priests from craddle to grave.
If there's any possible candidate I would bet in Eastern Europe, maybe Hungary, Romania or the Balkans, as the Ottoman influence would be greater there.

 

[Euphemios]

Spanish King or Queen is directly impossible. Catholicism defines them even more than nationality, and they were surrounded by priests from craddle to grave.

You say their religion defines them, but has that ever stopped priests and the such at any point in history from converting to another religion? As for them being surrounded by priests, could that not aggravate a disillusionment by the apparently suffocating effect they have?

 

[Jürgen]

Honestly it’s not impossible in the 18th or 19th century, but I would suggest it should be pretty far from the Muslim world, Frederick the Great was pretty openly atheist and Augustus the Strong converted to Catholicism. So as long the ruler in question doesn’t attempt to make Islam the state religion or do anything to limit the power of the Church they will likely let him get away with it. I would suggest a minor or medium sized state, preferable a German one.

 

[HeavyMetal]

You say their religion defines them, but has that stopped priests and the such at any point in history from converting to another religion?

In the rest of Europe, maybe yes. But you won't find many examples of Spanish abandoning Catholicism in that period, and even less converting to Islam. Even between the captured slaves in North Africa that was almost unheard of.

As for them being surrounded by priests, could that not aggravate a disillusionment by the apparently suffocating effect they have?

I don't think so. Spanish identity in this period is based in the Reconquista spirit, and crossing to the enemy's religion would be unthinkable for any ruler (and any temptation for it, quickly discovered and stomped over).

 

[Euphemios]

Frederick the Great was pretty openly atheist and Augustus the Strong converted to Catholicism.

What could these two do in their countries and abroad? I notice Augustus also had a massive domain, so if he plays his hand well, he could be fairly influential.
Would he ally with the Ottomans instead of warring against them? France, perhaps another ally in this scenario, did so without issue for centuries, and the Austrian position ought not to be too strong yet, with it only being two decades or so after the Siege of Vienna.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Would he ally with the Ottomans instead of warring against them? France, perhaps another ally in this scenario, did so without issue for centuries, and the Austrian position ought not to be too strong yet, with it only being two decades or so after the Siege of Vienna.

TBH I think the most they could realistically do would be to pursue good relations with other Muslim rulers. Depending on the exact time period, they could try and get financial or military aid by playing the "I'm secretly on your side, I just need to strengthen my position a bit before I can declare my true loyalties" card (cf. Charles II, as mentioned above), although this would be increasingly less likely as the Ottomans fell behind after the Great Turkish War.

 

[Euphemios]

After some thinking, though I dismissed England readily out of hand, Edward VI's reign seems to be stable enough for this. There is just the question of whether his educators and such will even allow him to contemplate such a thing.
If he does get to the stage of conversion, with the canyon in between the various Protestant denominations theologically, and the relative dependence that the Anglican Church has on the King, I am thinking he could pass off even ritual ablution and Salah as Protestant practice.
Though do tell me if what I say is misjudgment.

 

[Comte de Dordogne]

The English are probably too busy with their intriguing and infighting to give breathing space to a convert to do anything.

Louis XIII is the precursor to the infamous XIV and ruled during the last breaths of French feudalism.

Yes, Louis XIII is known for having had a very stable reign, far removed from plots and revolts.
His conversion to Islam was impossible for Louis XIII. Not only was his power as King of France based entirely on Catholicism, but we also know that Louis XIII had a sincere personal faith (much more so than his father or son). And all this without forgetting that Islam was extremely depreciated in European society at the time.
So I don't see the link between the end of feudalism in France (which, incidentally, only came to a complete end with the Revolution) and a possible conversion of Louis XIII.

 

[Euphemios]

So I don't see the link between the end of feudalism in France (which, incidentally, only came to a complete end with the Revolution) and a possible conversion of Louis XIII.

He was more a 'significant figure that could make great impact' like Charles V there on the same list. Also, due to my past Anglophilic tendencies, I do not know as much about France as I do their northern neighbours, so excuse my ignorance as to their state.

 

[Byzantion]

Henry VIII maybe ? Instead of declaring the Anglican Church he becomes a Muslim ruler ? But probably ASB. Otherwise maybe an Iberian ruler under certain circumstances.

 

[Euphemios]

Henry VIII maybe? Instead of declaring the Anglican Church he becomes a Muslim ruler?

He has far too many enemies, and I am not sure he would particularly like Islam's rulings on things like adultery and alcohol.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

He has far too many enemies, and I am not sure he would particularly like Islam's rulings on things like adultery and alcohol.

On the other hand the multiple wives bit would suit him just fine.

 

[Remitonov]

He has far too many enemies, and I am not sure he would particularly like Islam's rulings on things like adultery and alcohol.

On the other hand the multiple wives bit would suit him just fine.

Pork prohibitions might be a big no-go too. Of course, all that is minor misgivings compared to the possibility of being toppled by a more 'pious' Christian upstart. The Ottomans and other Muslim powers would be powerless to help him, and could only, at best, offer him sanctuary.

 

[LongVin]

Pork prohibitions might be a big no-go too. Of course, all that is minor misgivings compared to the possibility of being toppled by a more 'pious' Christian upstart. The Ottomans and other Muslim powers would be powerless to help him, and could only, at best, offer him sanctuary.

Perhaps he would create his own branch of Islam without the pork restriction. Say it was misinterpreted in a translation or a relic of Judaism.

Same argument could be made for alcohol. They might say wine is haram but anything that's not from a grape is ok, which was the justification of some.

 

[Remitonov]

Perhaps he would create his own branch of Islam without the pork restriction. Say it was misinterpreted in a translation or a relic of Judaism.

Same argument could be made for alcohol. They might say wine is haram but anything that's not from a grape is ok, which was the justification of some.

He's welcome to try, but then everyone else in the Muslim world would brand him a heretic anyway, so what good will that do?

 

[ennobee]

May be in the late 1800's with the rise of constitutional monarchies and secularism, where the ruler of a country was not automatically "King by God's Design, Defender of Faith" but rather the first chairman of parliament. I could see several rulers dabbling in esoteric Islam like Shufism, much like some rulers were rumored to secretly practice spiritualism or even Freemasonry. Overall, their influence however would be negligible as by that time most countries, even monarchies had already a strict division of Church and State and therefore the king would have no real influence on religious matters, other than that as a celebrity, he might set an example...

 

[Evil Crusader]

Perhaps he would create his own branch of Islam without the pork restriction. Say it was misinterpreted in a translation or a relic of Judaism.

Same argument could be made for alcohol. They might say wine is haram but anything that's not from a grape is ok, which was the justification of some.

I suppose he'd have the most spectacular case of no legitimacy ever...